4 ms·
At this point we need to recognize that these "private companies" are now de facto state actors. They take censorship advice from government agencies (like the
by Mattasher 4y ago
At this point we need to recognize that these "private companies" are now de facto state actors. They take censorship advice from government agencies (like the CDC), ban certain people in response to political pressures, and hand over user's private data without a warrant.
That doesn't mean regulating them like common carries is good or workable, but we need to start by recognizing that there are first amendment claims on both sides now.
- fallenasleep 4y agothe big ones are also global companies who operate in many countries (and cooperate with many countries' law enforcement). For me, the better metaphor is to think of them as virtual governments of virtual territories
- Mattasher 4y agoThis seems like a better analogy than "private companies", but then where does that lead you in terms of how they should be treated? No snark here, genuine question.
- aNoob7000 4y agoThe problem is finding the right balance between free speech and censorship. I look forward to see how cases that go to the Supreme Court are going to be handled. I personally believe that a private business like Facebook has the right to control content on their app/website.
- klyrs 4y agoThe Supreme Court is little more than a chapter of the Federalist Society right now. Even Roberts cannot moderate them.
- dijonman2 4y agoNo amount of censorship is acceptable, IMO.
- amanaplanacanal 4y agoUnfortunately, without censorship, the spammers take over. Maybe this is what will finally kill Facebook and Twitter.
- chrismcb 4y agoMy personal opinion is once they start censoring, then they are responsible for everything on their site. I think it is ok to let people moderate. But once the company starts to censor then it implies they are ok with what they didn't censor. This is not what Facebook wants. They want to censor and not be responsible. They can't have it both ways
- throwaway4220 4y agoSo if you say the sky is green, and NASA says "That's wrong", you call that censorship?
- radford-neal 4y agoIf someone writes a post saying the sky is green, NASA says "that's wrong", and then goes on to say that if the social media platform doesn't remove the post saying the sky is green, NASA will forbid the platform from sending any messages using communication satellites, then yes, that is censorship. Of course, they're unlikely to behave so blatantly, at least initially. They're more likely to just sort of hint at how anti-trust prosecutions might be started or not depending on whether the platform follows the government's "advice".
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- NovemberWhiskey 4y agoSorry, where are the First Amendment issues with allowing social media networks to censor whatever they want? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Let's please not make the mistake of saying all issues that relate to freedom of speech are First Amendment issues.
- kcplate 4y ago> Let's please not make the mistake of saying all issues that relate to freedom of speech are First Amendment issues. The problem is when government and social media actively collude to side step the government’s responsibility to the first amendment…the government has dragged the social media companies into first amendment territory. You have two ways of handling this: one…have the government police itself…which it won’t do, because it is already actively trying to find ways around its responsibility to freedom of speech; Or two, start lawsuits that expose the collusion and start making it expensive for social media companies to collude with the government to censor.
- NovemberWhiskey 4y ago>The problem is when government and social media actively collude to side step the government’s responsibility to the first amendment The government's responsibility to the First Amendment is "don't make laws that limit freedom of religion, speech or assembly". I don't know what it means for government to collude with a third party to side-step that responsibility.